The Supreme Court hears the arguments on Wednesday in a case that tests if South Carolina can withdraw the Planned Parenthood clinics from its Medicaid state program, even if Medicaid funds cannot generally be used to finance abortions.
Andrew Harnik / Getty images
hide
tilting legend
Andrew Harnik / Getty images
The Supreme Court hears the arguments on Wednesday in a case that does not really concern abortion, except that this is the case.
The question is whether a state – in this case, South Carolina – can remove Planned Parenthood clinics from its Medicaid state program, even if Medicaid funds cannot generally be used to finance abortions.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic has long operated two clinics in South Carolina which provide essential medical care for low -income patients through Medicaid. Among the services provided are physical examinations, cancer screening and screening for conditions such as diabetes, anemia, high cholesterol and high blood pressure. The centers are also intended for low-income patients by providing flexible hours, meetings the same day and complete contraception care in a single meeting, as well as interpreter services.
In addition, and not covered by Medicaid, health centers provide abortion services to the extent limited authorized by state law-that is to say during the first six weeks of pregnancy.
In 2018, the Republican Governor of Southern Carolina published dismissed decrees dismissing the participation of Planned Parenthood in the State Medicaid program because of his abortions funded separately.
In a state with a large shortage of primary care providers, this meant that many low -income residents used Planned Parenthood for their health care would not be lucky. And Planned Parenthood, which operates on thin financial margins, should close its doors. The clinics therefore challenged their withdrawal from the state Medicaid list and they won. The lower courts have found it on several occasions that the Federal Medicaid law specifically requires that patients have the right to go to a “qualified and disposed” medical supplier and that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic was and is a qualified supplier.
“The Congress has decided that even when a person is provided by Medicare and Medicaid, the state will not dictate which doctor he can go,” observes Nicole Saharsky, who represents Planned Parenthood. “Like people who are under private insurance, they can go to any qualified and arranged supplier,” she said, adding that “medical decisions are intensely personal, so this has been a demand for federal law for more than 50 years.”
Lawyer John Bursch, representing Southern Carolina, argues that federal regulations that interpret the law allow states to disqualify a supplier for any reason. He said that the reason in this case is that “taxpayers did not want their Medicaid dollars to go to an organization that takes life to be born”.
Bursch says that it is an improper term to call the part of the law of Medicaid in question in the case of Wednesday “the free choice of providers”.
“The word” free “is not in status. … The word” choice “is not in law. They only do these words,” he said.
It’s all smoke and mirrors, against lawyer Saharsky.
“South Carolina has conceded throughout this dispute that Planned Parenthood is a medically qualified supplier,” she said. The real state’s objection is that “they just don’t like Planned Parenthood”.
So, as the affair comes to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the question is not whether Planned Parenthood can be excluded from the South Carolina Medicaid system, but more specifically, the question is: if Planned Parenthood is a qualified supplier under the Medicaid law, what recourse does it exist for Planned Parenthood and its patients under the law obliging the State to pay each supplier Medicaid?
Bursch, representing the State, will tell the judges that, under the status of Medicaid, neither the patients nor the providers have the right to enforce the law of Medicaid. He argues that the only remedy that the status provides is that patients and providers call on the Secretary of Health and Social Services, asking him to withdraw all the funding of the State Medicaid until he complies.
“It has essentially never happened,” observes Saharsky, “because it would harm the very people as the state and the United States is supposed to help – people who live in poverty.”
Thus, instead of this, Planned Parenthood and one of his Medicaid patients are continuing to apply patient rights to obtain Planned Parenthood medical care.
South Carolina maintains that the Federal Medicaid law simply does not allow such individual rights of application. In addition, lawyer Bursch maintains that “the Medicaid law gives states substantial flexibility” and that “with regard to qualifications, the State can disqualify for any reason that the law of the State authorizes”.
The lower courts have often called Medicaid as a “case” for states. For example, South Carolina obtains 70% of its Federal Government Medicaid funds. And in exchange, he “must” live up to the conditions specified in the law, including the reimbursement of Medicaid for any qualified supplier.
That said, in recent years, the conservative Supreme Court has rarely granted an individual right to continue as an application mechanism in cases similar to it.
If the Supreme Court indicates that southern Carolina can withdraw Planned Parenthood from its list of qualified medical suppliers and that patients are not allowed to continue, many other states will follow, leaving drugs with much fewer places to go for medical care.
